... So in a fairly vicious post about him, one which I know he read, both the posts and the comments, because he remarks about a particular comment by Cassandra on Cassandra's thread-- why did no one calling himself "Glenn Greenwald" respond?

No response from "Glenn Greenwald." However, a response from "Ellison," making exactly the same points one would expect Glenn Greenwald himself to make.

Coincidence?

Let's say "Ellison" is his overprotective boyfriend, going behind his back to defend him with Greenwald's knowlege. Ellison defends him in the thread. But Greenwald doesn't know that, right? Where's Greenwald himself, under his own name, responding?

Strange... it's almost as if Greenwald knew that the requisite defense of Greenwald had already been adequately made there, huh?

Now, if Greenwald DID know his boyfriend was doing this, under multiple names, well then, he's complicit in the deception. Yes, someone else is defending him, but under assumed names to suggest greater popular support, and furthermore concealing his relationship with Greenwald. And Greenwald knows he's doing this. Even if this were true -- how, exactly, does this absolve Greenwald? He's still guilty of sock-puppetry, using his boyfriend to actually type the words. Perhaps sock-marionet-ry is more accurate.

So, Kevin-- why is it that when Ellison defended Greenwald after a post which attacked Greenwald, and which Greenwald is known, conclusively, to have read, Greenwald himself saw no reason to comment?

Um... Maybe he was busy at the time?

If Ace is reduced to "The English is too good be a Brazilian" and "He didn't reply and that means he's guilty" you can tell the rest of the case is now going down one of those internet tubes.

If you need more evidence the party is over, Patterico who was all exclamation points yesterday, is now pointing to Ace and saying, "It's was all his idea." Being a prosecutor, he knows a weak case when he sees it.

All that's left now is waiting for Don Meredith to start singing.

Update WOW. If you need proof the desperation is setting in, just take a gander at Ace's comments below. Unhinged.

He makes accusations of Greenwald then he DEMANDS that I prove his accusations are false. Lost on Ace is the fact he needs to prove they are true. He has no proof, all he has is conjecture and now a temper tantrum. Nice.

For someone talking such smack, with such jackass self-assuredness, you seem to offer nothing more than "maybe" and "might be."

Sorry, I suspect bad motives. I don't know if you're all pissy that you weren't in on this and you're trying to denigrate it, or because you're a buddy of Greenwald's, or whatever, but there is something simply absurd about a jackass taking a series of spun-from-thin-air "may be's" and "might be's" and then saying "Case Closed."

So... let me get this straight, Paul. It's less likely that Greenwald was on the computer, responding to attacks as sock-puppets, than it is that the Magic Boyfriend was on another computer at the time (or briefly took over Glenn's) to respond as "Ryan" on a blog, right?

So... they just sit there, both of them typing away on two different computers, BOTH obsessively patrolling for anti-Greenwald comments, huh?

This is what the Magic Boyfriend does all day?

Sort of a tag-team effort? While Glenn is posting as Glenn on one blog, the Magic Boyfriend -- not content to let Glenn fight his own battles -- is SIMULTANEOUSLY defending Glenn on other blogs?

That's your theory, huh?

You got someone like that, Paul? A significant other who's out there posting in your defense even while you're blogging yourself?

Paul's idea of "likely."

I think it's "likely" that Paul is a contrarian asshole who likes to pretend he knows far, far more than he does.

I'm sorry Paul, but you seem to have mispelled a few words. The words you were trying to spell were "Yes, I concede that I have absolutely no evidence at all for my claims, while you can demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that Glenn himself was posting from that IP at the time, was reading rightwing blogs at that time, was responding to attacks on rightwing blogs at that time, and I really have no idea where the Magic Boyfriend is, if he's politically inclined at all, or even how fluent his English is."

Please note the proper spellings for the future.

By the way-- you're about to be smoked.

It just so happens that another confirmed sock-puppet writes like Glenn Greenwald and ably argues all of Glenn Greenwald's points for him.

It's amazing that the Magic Boyfriend not only has such a dedication to Glenn Greenwald, but such a command of Glenn Greenwald's arguments, and an ability to mimic his writing style as well!

fwiw, in the post where Glenn 'answer his critics' and mentions the pre-Bar law gig at Wachtell, the partner, and all that.

Glenn says that he went out on his own and was in a solo law practice.

I began my own firm as a sole practitioner at the beginning of 1996 and practiced law for the next ten years in Manhattan at my own firm

That probably came as a surprise to the two other guys, Cristoph and Holland.

Now, Glenn might have set up his own firm for, maybe a week, while getting the partnership agreements together with Christoph and Holland.

I do know that Christoph is younger than Greenwald but that Holland is about 15-20 years older. I don't have the cite handy, but Holland was listed as, iirc, the managing and/or senior partner for the firm. Sure, Glenn was a partner, but who knows if it was his firm in any meaningful way.

So - would you agree with the *impression* Glenn gives which is that he, alone, set up a shop as a sole proprieter and grew it to six attorneys?

Or do yo think maybe, just maybe you can take Glenn at his word - but only if you consider all possible interpretations of his words and get him to specifically exclude all the seemingly semi-ridiculous ones?

Sure, based on what Glenn wrote, reasonable people might think that Glenn struck out from Wachtell on his own and built his solo practice into a six man shop with national reach over the course of 10 years.

I think those people would be surprised to learn otherwise. I'd be stunned if they took Greenwald at his word the next time he wrote something.

The simple fact is that with IP address alone there is no possible way to disprove Glenn's admission that someone else in the house was commenting on posts. We all know that the "someone" was most likely the boyfriend.

There is no other "proof" other than the fact that the comments came from the same IP address. Everything else Ace, et. all is slinging is conjecture. So based on that sole fact you can either accept the given explanation or press forward to prove that it is a lie. The problem is you will never be able to prove (conclusively) that it's not true, because as we've shown over and over it's possible for two (or more people) to be active and commenting from the same IP address when they have a cable modem/router setup (or other similar setups).

For example, let's say Glenn further clarifies his previous explanation and says the boyfriend was posting under several different names and inventing e-mail conversations to further anonymize himself. That would match be a full mea culpa and match the facts of the case, i.e., that the comments all came from the same IP address - their home.

Would that close the case? I guessing that for Ace the answer would be no...

You should really step out of this one wizbang crew. As I've said before, I don't know who Glenn Greenwald is, and will stubbornly refuse to learn his message, though I assume it's anti-bush.

Even his supporters must agree by now that he or his roomates are supporting him. Even if it's just his roomates, it's sleazy. How many friends have you had in your life who would rabidly support you, and then not tell you they did so? (Answer:0) He either wrote the supportive messages himself, or knew his bunk-buddies were doing it. I said buddies, not buddy. Multiple fake names suggests that he was making up multiple characters, or he had a multitude of supporters at his home.

I don't buy that it was one(s) of his friends, but evein if true, it's sleazy.

It seems to me that if the point of this ridiculous imbroglio were to discredit Greenwald, why does it continue? Ace, Pat, Dan, and Bob have all reached the conclusion they prefer, that Greenwald is a sock-puppet. Therefore he can be dismissed in good conscience as being a less than credible or honest blogger, and they can safely ignore him, right? But they do not do that, do they? Rather they continue to write post after post after post in their creepy Greenwald obsession. 18 of Ace's past 25 posts have been on Greenwald. And that is just in the past two days. 18 posts in two days, all about Greenwald. Unhinged indeed.

Why would it be necessary to make up multiple fake names if the culprit isnt Greenwald?

Can anybody think of a reason?

No. Of course not. There isnt one.

Greenwald is clearly a sockpuppeteer and for some strange reason you guys are coming to his defense.

"Even if GG comes out tomorrow and says it was all him that doesn't mean you proved anything."

The fact that you say that even if Greenwald completely admits that he was behind all this, you wouldnt change your opinion just proves how petty and stubborn you can be sometimes Paul.

Those TexANG documents were real! Just because you cant find a typwriter from 1972 that could have typed them doesnt mean anything. If you didnt see someone forging them - then they must not have been forged.

O.J. may be innocent - after all Paul wasnt there himself to witness the crime. You cant prove anything!

Is there any greater indication of stupidity, or insanity, or trying clumsily to create trouble, or all the above (aka liberalism) than demanding PROOF of anything of a personal nature online? How is it POSSIBLE to prove to an online audience who was at home, what their emotional state is or any of that other nonsense?

Here are some hilarious ways to tell if someone's a liberal (no, it's NOT on MY blog):

I dunno guys. Ace is kinda funny about this. Your attempt to buy into implausible - not impossible, but increasingly silly and decreasingly plausible - defenses for Greenwald seems serious.

You write about Ace like he writes for the Washington Post. Ever Read Ace of Spades HQ? It's funny. And a lefty using sock puppets to increase his fan-base? That's funny. It's a natch for Ace.

What's your dead-serious angle on this all about? It doesn't seem to be funny. It doesn't seem to be true (except in the sense of the afformentioned teeny-weeny chance of possibility). Seriously, I get Ace's obsessive posting. It's FUNNY. I do not get your take at all.

You can make a serious statement of principle or evidentiary standards or not wanting to pile on or whatever and be done with it. You've gone into this whole "Let's invent a whole case even Greenwald isn't making himself" thing. Which is weird. Okay, maybe funny. But not in the way you'd probably like.

It appears pretty obvious to me that the evidence points to this person named Greenwald posting comments defending himself through various different names on various different blogs.

I think Ace has done a poor job of defending his position, not through the use of logic, but merely by using foul language and name calling.

On the other hand I think that Paul has done a great job of remaining level headed but a poor job of applying logic. Paul's argument seems to be, "If you do not agree with me, you aren't using logic." Statements like, " Personally I prefer that facts drive my beliefs." are very childish and immature and are meant to lazily replace arguments.

What i'd like to see are the facts laid out.

For example, is it a fact that someone has been posting from the IP address that Glenn Greenwald uses?

Is it a fact that whoever is posting from Glenn Greenwalds IP addresses is using various psuedonyms on various different weblogs to defend Glenn Greenwalds ideas/positions?

If these two facts are established, I can't see what other evidence is needed to establish Mr. Greenwalds guilt. At that point it seems quite obvious.

If someone wishes to defend Mr. Greenwald, then they will have to provide sufficient excuses to show that Mr. Greenwald wasn't the obvious perpetrator.

To believe otherwise shows a rather large naivete.

Thus far, if those two facts stand as ive stated them, it appears clear that Mr. Greenwald has been his own defender. Which is pretty pathetic.

What are the other facts which could lead to doubt about that position?

Look, I like you all, but this is becoming a pointless argument on BOTH SIDES. Who the fuck cares about Glenn Whatits? He's not Kos, He's not Atrios, hell, he isn't even Oliver Willis in the scheme of things in the Left blogosphere.

Ace, I love ya, but enough...you too, Kevin.
Split a bottle of ValuRite vodka, and apologise to each other. Glenn AIN'T WORTH IT.

For example, let's say Glenn further clarifies his previous explanation and says the boyfriend was posting under several different names and inventing e-mail conversations to further anonymize himself. That would match be a full mea culpa and match the facts of the case, i.e., that the comments all came from the same IP address - their home.

One more thing, Kevin makes a good point in another post below.
"If it turns out (as appears likely) that he was not in Brazil when every single "sock puppet" comment was made then the increasingly convoluted theories being advanced to explain the story fall apart, because (at this point) the claims still seem to be that ALL the comments were made by Glenn."

Likewise, if it turns out that he was in Brazil when every single "sock puppet" comment was made then the increasingly convoluted theories being advanced by Paul fall apart.

I can tell you the days he came and went from the country back and forth to Brazil. If someone wants to send me email, we can work together to figure this out.

Unless of course Paul and Kevin want to argue that it is merely an incredible coincidence that Mr. Greenwald's accomplice only defends Mr. Greenwald when he was in Brazil.

On the other hand I think that Paul has done a great job of remaining level headed but a poor job of applying logic. Paul's argument seems to be, "If you do not agree with me, you aren't using logic." Statements like, " Personally I prefer that facts drive my beliefs." are very childish and immature and are meant to lazily replace arguments.

Then in your very next line you say:

What i'd like to see are the facts laid out.

DUH! We'd all like the facts layed out. But we don't have them all.

If I say that I'm an idiot but if you say it you're some sort of Rhodes freaking Scholar.

Paul, I have to chime in here to say I think you are being more than a little defensive about your views.

I think it's clear that _something_ is going on with Glenn/Ellison/boyfriend1/boyfriend2/whomever regarding those fawningly supportive comments, but is it "sock puppetry"? I don't know, but it _does_ looks suspicious. Something it seems you would rather not even admit.

--------------
Likewise, if it turns out that he was in Brazil when every single "sock puppet" comment was made then the increasingly convoluted theories being advanced by Paul fall apart.
--------------

They will not be forthcoming guys. People are going to have to believe what they believe. There will be no definitive proof of who made the comments. Time for everyone to make their call: it was Greenwald, it was someone else, or I don't know/care. The others may continue their obsession, but they will not get the answers they seek (not that they care, they've reached their conclusion).